Panama Leaks case
PTI counsel advised to file reference with NAB to reopen Hudaibiya Paper Mills case
INP
Islamabad
Supreme Court (SC) on Monday directed Sharif family to explain contradiction in statements to defend itself in Panama Papers case.
A five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed the case hearing in which, Justice Khosa asked that: “Is there any
record of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s statement regarding starting business in 2005?”.
He further said that no one will escape from the legal action except Siraj-ul-Haq if court starts disqualifying people on
interviews and statements.
Justice Khosa said that Panama Leaks case is of honesty, not flats. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Naeem Bukhari told the court
that trust deed was made after the issue was raised in SC. Earlier, before a brief duration break, Justice Azmat Saeed said
Naeem Bukhari is ‘flirting’ with legal questions. He ordered PTI counsel to stay in rostrum until the bench’s satisfaction.
‘The court asked 16 questions, none of which was responded by you’, Justice Azmat Saeed said to Naeem Bukhari. The PTI lawyer claimed that Hussain Nawaz gave Rs 810 million as
gift to Nawaz Sharif who didn’t pay tax on that precious gift on which, Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan said that it’s not necessary for Hussain Nawaz to pay tax as he is not living in Pakistan.
A son can give gifts to his father likewise a father can also give surprises to his son, he added.
Naeem Bukhari argued that Sharif family has not provided any record regarding bank transactions on which, Justice Aijaz
inquired that: “Is presenting money trail responsibility of Nawaz Sharif when the property belonged to Qatari family?”
Justice Asif Saeed Khosa advised Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) counsel Naeem Bokhari to file a reference with National
Accountability Bureau (NAB) Chairman Qamar Zaman Chaudhry to reopen the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case.
“We can call the chairman of NAB and ask him why he did not nbfulfill his responsibilities.”
The top court, during Monday hearing of most talked about Panama Papers case, questioned the PTI’s lead counsel over proof that the Sharif family owned luxury flats in London in 1993.
Justice Azmat Saeed directed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) lawyer Naeem Bukhari to stay in rostrum until the satisfaction of court.
According to details, a five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa resumed the case hearing in which PTI lawyer presented arguments.
Justice Azmat Saeed said Naeem Bokhari ‘flirts’ with legal questions and avoids court proceedings. He ordered the counsel to stay in podium and must clarify his stance in order to satisfy the bench.
‘The court asked 16 questions, none of which was responded by you’, Justice Azmat Saeed said to Bukhari.
Justice Khosa also admonished Bokhari for steering the focus of the case away from the London flats towards the Hudaibiya Paper Mills.
“First in the case you spoke about the London flats. Now, you have jumped towards the confessional statement of Ishaq Dar,” he noted.
“PTI counsel Naeem Bukhari is once again unable to substantiate his submissions regarding London properties,” Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh remarked. Sheikh further said, “You did not submit any scrap of paper to establish that Sharif family owned London properties in 1993.”
The apex court also raised questions over the National Accountability Bureau’s failure to file an appeal regarding the re-investigation of Rs612 million Hudaibia Papers Mill scam against the Sharif family.
Justice Ejaz ul Hasan, too, pointed out to the counsel that his arguments had failed to make clear whether or not Maryam Nawaz is a dependent of her father.
Bokhari told the court that the London flats were bought under Maryam Nawaz’s name between 1993 to 1996. He added that at the time of the transaction, Maryam Nawaz was underage and had no source of income.
The advocate alleged that Maryam Nawaz was made the beneficiary as a smokescreen, whereas the PM is the real owner of the flats.
He told the apex court that, in a similar manner, the PM set up mills in Jeddah and Dubai by using benami transactions.
Justice Khosa pointed out that the burden of proof lies with the PTI since they claim to have the evidence. He added that it was the party’s responsibility to show how the companies were bought, who made them and where the money came from.
Justice Khosa told Bokhari that if the Supreme Court sends the references regarding the Hudaibiya Paper Mills case to NAB, it will no longer be able to hold hearings on the Panamagate case in accordance with Article 184.
He further advised Bokhari that the responsibility was upon him to either separate the two cases or ensure that they are heard simultaneously.
Justice Ejaz ul Hasan, however, advised the advocate that if the two cases are joined, the Panamagate case will become ‘muddy’.
PTI lawyer claimed that Hussain Nawaz gave Rs810 million as gift to Nawaz Sharif who didn’t pay tax on that precious gifton which, Justice Aijaz-ul-Ahsan said that it’s not necessary for Hussain Nawaz to pay tax as he is not living in Pakistan.
A son can give gifts to his father likewise a father can also give surprises to his son, he added.
Bukhari argued that Sharif family has not provided any record regarding bank transactions on which, Justice Aijaz inquired that is presenting money trail responsibility of Nawaz Sharif when the property belonged to Qatari family?
The court adjourned the case till today (Tuesday).
